Travis Shanks v. State of Mississippi
233 So. 3d 877
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Travis Shanks pled guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea to deliberate-design (first-degree) murder on March 24, 2003 and was sentenced to life imprisonment.
- In his sworn guilty-plea petition Shanks admitted shooting the victim and affirmed competency, understanding of the charges, and satisfaction with counsel; his attorney also certified the plea was knowing and voluntary.
- Shanks filed a first PCR motion in 2006, which the trial court denied as time-barred; this Court affirmed on appeal.
- On September 11, 2015 Shanks filed a second PCR motion alleging involuntary plea, lack of notice of elements, ineffective assistance, lack of competency hearing, and an illegal sentence.
- The trial court summarily dismissed the 2015 PCR as successive and time-barred; the appellate court affirmed, concluding Shanks failed to show an applicable exception or present evidence overcoming the procedural bars.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Successive/time-bar | Shanks contends his claims address fundamental constitutional errors and thus are not procedurally barred. | State argues the 2015 PCR is successive and filed beyond the 3-year statutory limitation, with no applicable exception. | Affirmed: PCR is successive and time-barred; Shanks failed to show an exception. |
| Voluntariness / notice of elements | Shanks argues plea was not knowingly/voluntarily entered and court failed to advise him of elements (claims affect due process). | State points to sworn plea petition, attorney certification, and colloquy showing Shanks understood charges and consequences; prior PCR finding that he was informed. | Held: Plea was knowing and voluntary; claims lack merit and are procedurally barred. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Shanks asserts counsel was ineffective in advising/handling plea. | State notes Shanks swore he was satisfied with counsel; Shanks offers only his own assertions and no evidentiary support. | Held: Claim insufficiently pleaded under Strickland and PCR statutes; fails to overcome procedural bars. |
| Competency hearing | Shanks claims he was incompetent and trial court should have held competency proceedings. | State relies on Shanks’s sworn statement of competency and lack of evidence creating reasonable grounds for inquiry. | Held: No reasonable ground to doubt competency; no hearing required; claim fails. |
| Illegal sentence | Shanks asserts sentence is illegal. | State points to statute mandating life for deliberate-design murder and that Shanks pled to that offense. | Held: Sentence lawful and statutory; claim fails to overcome procedural bar. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thinnes v. State, 196 So. 3d 204 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (standard of review for PCR dismissal)
- Carson v. State, 161 So. 3d 153 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (review standards quoted)
- Cummings v. State, 203 So. 3d 1174 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (successive-writ bar under § 99-39-23(6))
- McComb v. State, 135 So. 3d 928 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (movant bears burden to show exception to procedural bars)
- Rowland v. State, 42 So. 3d 503 (Miss. 2010) (fundamental-rights exception to procedural bar)
- Anderson v. State, 577 So. 2d 390 (Miss. 1991) (valid guilty plea waives nonjurisdictional defects)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1969) (waiver of trial rights by plea)
- Phillips v. State, 421 So. 2d 476 (Miss. 1982) (plea waiver principles)
- Holland v. State, 956 So. 2d 322 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (plea must be voluntary and intelligent)
- Wilson v. State, 577 So. 2d 394 (Miss. 1991) (same)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective assistance standard)
- Vitela v. State, 183 So. 3d 104 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (pleading requirements for PCR ineffective-assistance claims)
- Foster v. State, 148 So. 3d 1012 (Miss. 2014) (record limits appellate consideration; illegal-sentence discussion)
- Grayer v. State, 120 So. 3d 964 (Miss. 2013) (definition of illegal sentence)